Thanks, BBC, for the expenses revelation – now tell us salaries

Published on Thursday 25 June 2009 21:30

THE BBC's decision to publish details of the expense claims of its senior executives can be explained in two ways. One view is that the Corporation, which is subsidised by licence fee payers to the tune of £3.6 billion per year, feels it has a duty to tell us how it is spending our money. Doubtless this is what the BBC would like us to think.

But the other, more realistic, interpretation is that the Corporation is trying to head off its critics at the pass by yielding this information voluntarily.

The truth is that the BBC, like Members of Parliament, has used loopholes in the freedom of information legislation repeatedly to block inquiries about staff pay and expenses. Following the row over MPs' allowances, the Corporation is well aware it is next in the firing line – hence the pre-emptive action. However, while the new transparency is welcome, it is far from sufficient. The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, is adamant that he will not reveal the inflated salaries paid to some star performers, though the BBC will reveal the aggregate figure paid to talent in September.

The case against the BBC is that the Corporation has strayed far from its original public service and educational remit. Its vast subsidy has allowed it to build a dominant presence in new media that is warping competition and forcing commercial rivals out of business. As a result, local newspapers and local news coverage are being jeopardised; commercial children's television is under pressure; aside from Sky, few digital broadcasters can compete with the BBC's production budget; and the Corporation's giant internet service is having a devastating impact on the newspaper business as a whole.

Of course, the commercial media and print journalism need to adapt to modern times. But businesses seeking to create a new commercial funding model for the digital age simply cannot compete with a BBC which is subsidised from the licence fee "poll tax", and which can afford to pay extravagant salaries because of that handout.

There are more reasons than just commercial confidentiality for the Corporation's desire to hide its salary structure. Commercial rivals can't pay what the BBC pays. The point is that once it is out in black and white how the licence fee payers' cash is being used, the BBC's cosy subsidy will be under threat. As it is, the information published yesterday shows an expenses culture of which MPs would be proud. There are dozens of claims for "presents" for artists and staff – a practice the Corporation says it has now ended. It is good to know licence fee money meant to improve the quality of broadcasting will no longer go on a 1,137.55 meal to celebrate Terry Wogan's knighthood; or on a 99.99 bottle of vintage champagne given to Bruce Forsyth for his 80th birthday.

The BBC must come clean on the salaries paid to its "talent". Hiding this information from the very people who supply the cash is a sign of arrogance.